I learned something new today! Thanks, Julian. I had a teacher in school who put a poster on the wall saying, "Free knowledge: Bring your own container." I don't know exactly why, but your videos often remind me of that. Tschüss.
It reminds me of the classic formula of Cascading Noise Floor:- Nf (total) = Nf1 + [(Nf2 -1)/G1] + [(Nf3 -1)/(G1xG2)] + [... The trick is the first stage must have the lowest noise floor and high gain.
Again, if somebody is interested in some tech details. Noise voltages don't sum in a straightforward way like Va + Vb + Vc ... +Vz. It's impossible to calculate an absolutely accurate sum of two noises, but as a rule of thumb sqrt(Va*Va + Vb*Vb, etc) is used with adequate results. So what happens when we try to sum the noises and one of them is 12 dB (roughly 4 times) louder than another, a quite common situation, described in this video? sqrt(4*4 + 1*1) ≈ 4.1, which is ≈ 0.2 dB of extra noise, the higher noise source (4) is dominant and the lower noise source (1) doesn't affect the noise level significantly. With 6 dB (roughly 2 times) difference it is sqrt(2*2 + 1*1) ≈ 2.2, it's worse, ≈ 0.8 dB of extra noise, but it's far from the straightforward 2+1=3 ( ≈ 3.5 dB) anyway. The numbers were chosen for clarity, the real noise voltages are in the 0.00000... V area usually.
This probably answers the question I was going to ignorantly ask, of how come the noise of the preamp doesn't just add to the noise of the mic. It's because the mic noise is first in the chain and louder, so any softer noises after aren't added linearly. Because the physics of noise VOLTAGES getting added together isn't the same as what you'd get from hearing different audible noises added together in a room. Do I have that right?
You really have a knack for breaking down technical details into an easy to understand form-a really good signal that you know what you’re talking about. Thanks for all you do!
Perfecly nailed. I refer to you very regularly in our french speaking weekly show "Les Sondiers" about sound recording. Your reviews are really the best. Many thanks for the superb work
Wonderful video as always. The big take away here is the fact that, as you said, almost all the time, a line leveled Dyn is gonna have a way higher noise floor than a Condenser due to the Conds being louder by default and higher dynamic range. Add to that the lack of treble the Dyns often have and how obvious the noise becomes if you ever shelve them, I almost never recommend dyn mics for relatively quiet signals like most people voices for example, and never in a broadcast environnement where compression is gonna be necessary.
3 minutes in I was brought back to reality. I've been struggling so hard to design a stereo mic preamplifier based on input transformers of all things only to start pulling hair out over which opamps input stage really lowered noise floor. This of course is also considerations that must be made for discrete electronics like individual transistor stages or tubes. Reality is people are of two fields here, musical, or wanting to hear a fly fart properly from 20' away using the cleanest known audio path. Doesn't mean you should give in to hiss though, that's usually a fault of design or cheapening, or a mistake in understanding your equipment and impedance matching.
Discovered your channel yesterday and immediately subbed. The quality of your videos is second to none. The detailed explanations and testing are quite impressive. Would love to see some sort of interface “tier list” or “recommendations” video from you! Cheers, and thanks for the great work
What you discuss in this video is the headamp concept in low noise electronics design. The first amplification stage or "head" noise spec dominates over the next stage's even if it has three times higher gain than the heading stage. More than three times the head gain coming after it, starts to slowly allow extra noise to mix in.
For example if the condenser mic has 20dB amplification inside it, even 3X or 60dB in the sound interface will not allow it to play an extra role in the system's noise.
True and well explained. Still, there is the issue of condenser mic self-noise. Very low self-noise is a feature of expensive condenser mics. I have noticed that inexpensive condenser mics have a wide variation of self-noise, even within the same make and model. There isn't such an issue with dynamic or ribbon mics when you have very quiet and high gain preamps in your mixing or audio interface. Pay me now, or pay me later. ;)
There isn’t much correlation between a condenser microphone’s noise and its price, meaning low noise is *not* a feature of expensive condenser microphones. For example, Røde’s NT1 has a stated noise of 4.5dAB and costs only $299 US (and that’s in a kit with shock mount and pop filter). Lewitt Audio’s LCT540 Subzero is currently the quietest mic on the market at 4dBA, and costs $699 US (again, sold with shock mount and pop filter). Neither of those could be called ‘expensive’ and yet they’re the two quietest microphones on the market at this point in time. Meanwhile, Earthworks QTC30 has a noise of 20dBA and costs $799, Neumann’s classic U87 Ai has 12dBA of noise in cardioid mode and costs $3650 US, and Neumann’s latest revision of the U67 has 17dBA of noise in cardioid mode and costs $7225 US. So more money does not mean less noise… [All prices here are from B&H’s webstore.] There are two noise sources within a condenser microphone. The first is Brownian noise (named after botanist Robert Brown, nothing to do with colour), which is due to air particles randomly rubbing against the diaphragm. It sounds rather like white noise passed through a very steep low pass filter, considerably darker than pink noise. Then there is thermal noise (the classic white noise style of ‘hiss’) which is related to the impedances of the mic’s internal circuitry and the temperature. The total noise coming out of the microphone is the combination of both, and to accurately represent that the term ‘Equivalent Noise Level’ is often used in preference to ‘self noise’ in contemporary specifications. Although there is no significant correlation between noise and price, there *is* a significant correlation between noise and diaphragm surface area. If we double the surface area of the diaphragm (and keep all other parameters the same), we’ll get twice as much Brownian noise and twice as much signal. The Brownian noise is uncorrelated, so doubling the diaphragm’s surface area creates an increase of 3dB (i.e. x √2) more Brownian noise. The captured signal is correlated, so doubling the diaphragm’s surface area creates an increase of 6dB (i.e. x 2) more signal. End result: double the diaphragm’s surface area and get 3dB more Brownian noise but 6dB more signal. So the signal going into the impedance converter circuit is 6dB stronger while the Brownian noise going into the impedance converter is only 3dB stronger. In other words, a higher amplitude signal with 3dB better S/N ratio going into the mic’s impedance converter. The microphone gets lower noise and higher sensitivity; the latter meaning it outputs a larger signal and therefore requires less preamp gain (technically the noise from the preamplifier is there but it’s not very significant compared to the noise from the condenser microphone itself, and especially less significant compared to a higher sensitivity condenser that requires less gain). The NT1 and LCT540 Subzero are large diaphragm mics (around 25mm), which is part of how they achieve their low noise. The QTC30 diaphragm is tiny in comparison, which is why it has such high noise. Similarly, DPA’s 4060 has a noise of about 23dBA and a diaphragm of around 5mm. So why bother with small diaphragms? The advantages of very small diaphragms are higher SPL handling and excellent off-axis response. As we make the diaphragm larger we get less noise but also reduced SPL handling and worse off-axis response (the microphone becomes increasingly directional as the frequency gets higher because the diaphragm itself literally gets in the way of very high frequencies). Rough late night examples, but the point is that price and noise aren’t really connected. Diaphragm surface area and noise are, however…
@@gregsimmons1709 Well marketing spec sheets are one thing, but then there's experience. Low self noise is a costly thing to guarantee, with consistency and quality control being big factors. If marketing spec sheets were what mattered, we'd have a lot more $40 "studio quality" condenser mics selling to big name recording studios.
Amazing video's that u are putting out, Julian. No blah blah about sponsors, just straight to the point, also very calm and pleasant to listen to. Very detailed reviews, etc. Also, everything is explained simply so that, we, people who don't know that much about audio understand it. I can say much more positive things. Because of that I subscribed to you! Keep up the good work Julian!
5:15 it's worth mentioning that recorders like Olympus LS-12, Tascam DR-40, and Zoom H4n that are popular among amateur musicians, nature recordists, and videographers, have an EIN well above -120 dBu. Ok with reasonably sensitive and high-output mics, but if you're recording from something like an SM7B or NTG2 it's important to get levels right or your SNR can drop precipitously. Especially relevant to people like wedding videographers who may be running solo and have minimal time to set levels - or may not even get a sound check. That's clearly not the target audience for this video but some of those folks may see this and get the wrong impression. That said, the bigger issues are usually mic placement, ambient noise, and mic self-noise.
Thanks Julian. Great info as always. How about a video dedicated to the differences between the different kinds of microphones: their specs and applications?
Hey Julian can u shed some light(maybe in future) about dynamic and condenser mic spl and how much pressure dynamic vs condenser mic can handle. Which is the key for condenser mic for having more details I believe. Anyway Love u 💞
Endlich jemand, der ein Colette für Sprachaufnahmen nimmt! Danke für das Video und den Vergleich. Das Schoeps klopft einem ja wirklich die Konsonanten in den Kopf, das SM7b klingt wie Pudding dagegen. Mal meditieren, was ich lieber mag...
Thanks! I've been wondering about this for some time, as I'm using a Steinberg UR44C, which I noted in your previous tests is (or the 22C sibling) has one of the worst noise specs, and is often used in your comparisons, like this. Yet, I don't detect a disturbing level of noise in the recordings. Surprise, most of my recordings are just condenser mics, or maybe 2 condensers and a dynamic, which I suppose still gets trumped by the noise from the condensers.
If you are using a cheap handheld recorder with a high EIN and a very low noise condenser, the noise may be doubled. With the very sensitive small diaphragm condensers the same preamp will not contribute a significant amount of noise. A modern home studio card, even a 200 euro one, will not add significant noise to any microphone. The noise contribution of the preamp and the signal per noise of a specific sound pressure level can be calculated from the specification of preamps, dynamic and cardioid mics.
But the thing is, it's most common to find dynamic mics on loud sources (drums, amps, etc) and condensers on quieter things like acoustic string instruments and vocals, so it generally works out that noise isn't a huge deal most of the time with either type of mic. If you put some tubes in the circuit though you're definitely going to get a bit of noise regardless of what type of mic you use, but it's generally worth it. :-)
The noise level on the Steinberg is just mad in comparison to many of the others. Especially because I gather Steinberg (And Yamaha who owns them) is a generally respected brand. And the form factor and the price is basically the same as many others. I actually have a rather old Steinberg CI2+ as a backup interface. It's stupidly simple and just works plug and play at least on windows computers. I haven't even attempted to measure it's noise performance when I've had it connected - I've used it with condenser mics in meetings and calls and it hasn't been noticeable, but then in a meeting no-one's listening to that small amount of noise even if there is any.
There was a difference, there is a spike in noise at around 6-8 kHz (in the white noise signal) with the Steinberg pre amp that is not present in the other example, the rest of the noise sounded the same though I have no opinion on preamps, just saying what I hear I get how due to the 60 Db increase the effect is grossly multiplied, I agree there was no noticeable difference with the Voice audio switch
people worry too much about preamp noise anyways. -130dB noise floor? I remember not being able to hear -50 in my daw on solo, let alone in a mix. Noise is usually close to white noise, which pretty much always get's lost in a mix until the mix is not dense (like a piano and vocal duo). My analog gear produces at least 20x the noise of the boring ultra linear home recording equipment shown here but I enjoy the sound of an overdriven mic pre with an aggressive compressor. Even if it's noisy as hell.
Formula to calc noise floor of condenser microphone based on specification: [Equivalent noise level] + [Sensitivity in dBV] + 2,2 dB - 94 dB (2,2 dB comes from conversion from dBV to dBu) For example SE Electronics SE8: Sensitivity: 25 mV / Pa (-32 dBV) Equivalent noise level: 13 dB Substitution into formula: 13 dB + (-32 dBV) + 2,2 dB - 94 dB = -110,8 dBu Am I right with calculations?
In some people's opinion the Zoom H4n was bad with the Røde NTG-2, whereas the NTG-2 was fine with some other recorders, and the Zoom H4n was fine with some other condenser microphones. I do not own the NTG-2, but I do own the Zoom H4n. I haven't, however, been able to find any specs on its preamps. But if those "some people" can be trusted, it seems that sometimes preamp noise does matter with some condenser microphones. (And as "some people" in this case are named Curtis Judd, I do tend to trust their views).
Hi Julian, just half an hour before watch this video, I have my Rode NT1a and Shure SM57 recording in a dry channel and comparing the noise.. what you said is totally true! If you use a dynamic mic, use a better preamp. If you use a condenser mic, use a better self noise microphone.. :D But I have a problem here, I tested both microphone (NT1a and SM57) to find which is better to reduce "Ambient noise". I have a lot of ambience noise from a road nearby even I've soundproofed my room with some Roxul insulation (not the ceiling though, not yet) I make an asmr unboxing video so it's a big problem for me. Using a dynamic cardiod microphone (sm57) does not solve the problem as my test today say so.. ambient noise only reduce by 3-4 db but the preamp noise is quite a big jump Is the only solution for my problem is to use a hypercardiod microphone? I know some condenser hypercardiod microphone such as samson C02 but the self noise is -22dBa... do you have any suggestion for me? THanks a lot!
Not sure a hypercardioid will solve your issue without adding other problems: Hypercardioid microphone do pickup some sound at the rear of the microphone and that may not suit your needs and also have a significant proximity effect (extreme bass amplification when you are close to the capsule). Maybe you could consider using a dynamic microphone (to naturally reduce the ambiant noise) that has a fairly high outpul level (to compensate for the preamp noise). A microphone such as the Prodipe TT1 has a much higher output level as the SM57 and costs next to nothing. Or you could try the Aston Element that has a very special capsule to provide the behavior of a dynamic microphone with a high output level and excellent high end that you usually lack with dynamic microphones
Julian I have always wondered about something and maybe you could answer this, how much does the dither type found in the converter chip effect the type of noise you get from an interface? Paul Frindle who designed the first large studio mixing console called the Oxford console (Sonnox plugins are an offshoot of Frindle's work) along with George Massenburg tested different dither types and came to the conclusion that a flat triangle dither gave better noise floor performance compared to exotic shaped noise. My question is do you think the dynamic range of modern audio interface are so low that this isn't an issue any longer or do you think that some of the noise (not all) we hear today in is partially different dither algorithms from the codec chip? I'm a huge fan of your channel by the way!!!
Your question is almost two decades late - I think the last ADC chips with fancy dithering options came out in 1997, and all parts introduced since the early 2000s have been straight 24-bit (and lately 32-bit) out. Since then, dither is (or may be) applied in the mastering stage in software, when it comes to creating 16-bit output for CD. If you set your audio devices to 16-bit in or out, chances are samples will just be truncated. At full bit depth, what you hear will be plain analog noise. I've tried a fair few dithering algorithms, and I think I may have come across a possible reason for reservations against shaped dither... the shaped dither could have a rather nasty peak right around the area where human hearing is most sensitive to noise (4-10 kHz), poking out well above the flat dither spectrum. The most audibly benign one I've come across is Foobar2000's heavily perceptually shaped dither, as accessible when using its converter. Using an audio player for mastering may not be overly convenient but you can also get a highly optimized SoX-based resampler DSP for it so you may at least be able to kill two birds with one stone. It be noted that dither and 0dBFS+ levels do not mix, as dithering assumes linearity. Keep true peak below 0 dBFS, with dithering on you can definitely afford it. As an aside, lossy data reduction formats (MP3, AAC etc.) generally use floating point arithmetic and as such can be encoded from higher precision data. Later Minidisc recorders seem to have supported encoding ATRAC from 20-bit input, DCC could do 18 bit recording then, and retro activists have managed to even stuff 24-bit samples into its MPEG layer 1 audio recently (though I don't think any DCC deck ever had more than a 20-bit DAC). This may seem silly but does mean that lossy formats support higher total dynamic range than CD audio (which, mind you, is generally twiddling its thumbs as-is, given that its capabilities already exceed those of practical listening environments).
PileOfEmptyTapes and you made some good points. The reason you do not need any dither even for 24 bit in modern sigma delta converters is that they do not capture the signal in PCM but rather in a single or multibit stream that runs at much higher sampling frequencies (actually quite similar to DSD). These converters have high amounts of quitisation noise but this is pushed entirely out of the audible range resulting in an extremly high usable dynamic range. The thermal noise in the converter is often the limiting factor for the noise floor providing essentially natural dither. When the captured bitstream is converted to 24 bit PCM there is simply no dither needed. But most ADCs have the option to add dither, when they are set up to output 16 bit PCM as this can improve the usable dynamic range of the otherwise limited 16 bit format. Tbh, the dynamic range of ADCs and DACs these days is so big that it is often more likely to hear other noise like ambient noise or inherent noise of the mic or preamp.
Interesting, but when I recently hooked up my Shure SM81-LC mic to a Tascam DR-40x, the latter added a very audible noise level to the recording, compared to my previous Focusrite Scarlett Solo (3rd gen) setup with the same mic. Does that mean that the noise added by the DR-40x is "unreasonable", as you've explained? Also, do you have a favorite portable audio recorder which I could replace the DR-40x with? Thanks for all your videos, they're super valuable.
Probably irrelevant, but when you were speaking in the condenser mic, I could hear the click and pop noises made by your tongue, but I couldn't hear them when you were speaking in the SM7B. I found that fascinating.
I would believe, that the self noise of the microphone is always on top of the preamplifier self noise - as the input of the microphone noise isn’t drowned by the noise floor of the interface.
Well, to fairly compare microphone self noise, you have to adjust the noise spec using the sensitivity spec, to bring everything to the same target signal level, say 0 VU. I'd like to see someone explain the maths for that, especially as the sensitivity spec is defined in a couple of different formats. It would be nice to have a full & reliable explanation on how to convert these things. Ta
You’ve done some great tutorials on microphone sensitivity and noise, but have you done any on the topic of how to select the most appropriate microphone sensitivity and dynamic range for various recording situations (e.g., rock bands vs. orchestra vs. vocalist vs. field recording)?
Of course, the compression which youtube adds alters what we "hear" in the examples as well, which must be taken into account. And with youtube, if listening on a laptop's speakers, the difference between a Lewitt Sub Zero and a TLM 103 (on a youtube clip) will not be readily discernible to the average listener "listening" on a current iteration of a decent laptop, vs good earphones or monitors, but all-that-aside, I love this video! [edit] the Lewitt sub-zero and TLM 103 have verifiable 'super low" self-noise compared to other condenser mics, and I feel that should be recognized for this discussion.
Hi Julian, when you tested the original Focusrite Clarett 2Pre, your testing showed great results regarding dynamic range on the mic inputs and line outputs, with poorer results regarding mic pre noise and it’s headphone output. I recently purchased the new Focusrite Clarett+ 2Pre. It sounds so great that I feel like I bought new studio monitors. Focusrite claims they have improved it’s specifications with a new, different ADC/DAC chipset and headphone output. I’d be curious to see your results when testing the new one, as I have been very impressed so far with subjective listening.
For condenser mics you can look up the equivalent input noise in their spec sheets and for dynamic mics you would need to calculate it. I have roughly shown this in this video: czcams.com/video/_P8AJxVepUE/video.html
Decided to comment under this video again for better visibility: Hello Julian. I am currently recording on a 10y old Scarlet 2i2 1Gen and want to upgrade to something more professional (had a few songs on the radio and my interface is really lacking). I now have the chance to buy a used (1y old) UAD Apollo Solo Interface (with classic collection plugins) from a local recording studio and was wondering if it is worth the higher price point when compared to other (cheaper) interfaces (eg. Audient iD 14, SSL2/2+ or even UADs own Volt 276). To be clear - I am looking to buy something that will serve me well for another 8-10 years of my musical journey (so I would rather pay a little more and be satisfied than having to spend more down the read). Thank you very much in advance and all the best!
Julian, at 4:39 you show a graph of the noise of some microphones - you say calculated noise. Therefore it seems you used the specification data for that calculation, right? Or did you use some measured results? Because "on paper" the SE8 has only a self noise of 13dB -- the same like the Neumann KM184. But in your graph you show a much higher noise for the SE8. This correlates well to my practical tests. I have the AKG C391B which has a self noise of 17 dB. In your graph the self noise is higher than the KM184 -- which it should be. But the AKG in your graph shows a much lower noise than the SE8, which in my real world experience is true, but is not seen in the specifcation sheet. So what is the explanation for that? I'd love to hear an answer. Maybe also a nice idea for another video!? 😀
Cheers and kudos to you and your uploads mate,, very informative thanks much for that.. One question though just want your opinion since i'm soon going to purchase a new audio interface about the price of a motu m2 .. what would you recommend for mainly vocal recordings? thanks much!
Need help. I hoocked Behringer xenyx 1202 USB to my Huawei P20pro and will livestream/video recording of my rehaersal(2xguitars, bass, singing, drums from EZD, but sound in video, or streaming is mono. Any apps or what can help? Is not compatible. I cant find it on net. Thnx. You make great videos 👍
The only area where preamps and amplifiers become important concerning condenser mics is the frequency response they contribute to a recording. All preamps/amplifiers interact with your condenser mic, influencing the tonal characteristics of your recording, thus these should be chosen more with a mind to final sound rather than their self-noise as already explained by Julian.
Hi Julian! Love your videos! I'm wondering, I seem to recall that you did a video where you proved/stated that a Shure SM7B doesn't necessarily need a CloudLifter or another kind of preamp. Do you still feel this way? (Now that the price has dropped on the SM7B, I'm once again lusting after one, but, as usual, I'm balking at the additional price of a CloudLifter.) ( I'm using a Presonus Studio 24c, and a Presonus AudioBox USB 96) T.I.A.!
whether or not you need an inline preamp depends on the audio-interface and its preamps and their capabilities and not just on the microphone. The PreSonus Studio 24c has good preamps with low selfnoise. It can power the SM7B as long as its close to your mouth - just plug in the microphone, turn the preamp all the way up and see if your audio-meter reaches a proper recording level. if you have it further away you might benefit from an inline preamp due to the 24c's limited gain supply - check the video here czcams.com/video/s3a-MnP2GFA/video.html The USB96 unfortunately has really noisy and weak preamps so you would absolutely benefit from an inline preamp there - check the video here czcams.com/video/phiFdrsijI4/video.html
Hallo Julian, wie misst Du das Eigenrauschen von Mikrofonen? Könntest Du auch den Frequenzgang von Mikrofonen messen? Wie ist der Testaufbau für diese Zwecke bzw. welche Software nutzt Du mit welchen Einstellungen? Viele Grüße Dennis
amazing video, I have a question Julian. 16 bit vs 24 bit recording quality of a interface for home usage. For instance, would M Track solo be clearly inferior in quality compared to other 24 bit capable interfaces? I would love if you could make a myth busting or proper explanation video on that and also to show the fact if inferior, it is negligible or not.
You've got to see the whole package. This type of interface is going to be just fine for a spoken word application (voiceover or podcasting), where mid-80s dB of dynamic range is perfectly adequate und nobody cares about the last bit of filter ripple in the frequency response or whether distortion is 80 or 95 dB down. In fact, when using a dynamic mic I'd much rather have one of these than the Presonus Audiobox 96 with its terribly noisy mic input. Add an XM8500 or PGA58 and a basic mic stand, and you've got a decent cheap and cheerful podcasting setup. What they do not have (and that's something shared e.g. with the Behringer UMCxxxHD series) is very high maximum input level... the M-Tracks seem to max out at -1 dBu, and then ADC clipping starts at -4 dBFS so it's more like -5 dBu tops. If you have a condenser mic on the hot side like an AT2035 or TLM103, this would mean clipping at ca. 119 dB SPL, which could get tight for singing. You clearly won't get much street cred for using an interface with a near two decade old USB single-chip audio solution, but they've got a time and place when it needs to be simple and cheap. That being said, pre-pandemic I was able to buy a used Mackie 402VLZ4 compact mixer for roughly the same price... if you have some half-decent onboard audio mic or line input available that can be wrestled into cooperating if necessary (e.g. turning off noise reduction, enable 24-bit recording via modded drivers), that's another option no doubt. You'll want to set output level to ca. -15 dB for a decent match to the onboard input, but this mixer's mic inputs can take up to +22 dBu or something silly like that, so no problems with hot mics for sure, and input noise is good regardless. I'm running mine into a trusty Asus Xonar D1's line input.
Ultra high-end low noise condenser microphone, preamp and AD converter will make a considerable difference in a context where the source is low in volume.
You have a gift both for simply explaining technical matters as well as excellent graphics/visuals.
I learned something new today! Thanks, Julian. I had a teacher in school who put a poster on the wall saying, "Free knowledge: Bring your own container." I don't know exactly why, but your videos often remind me of that. Tschüss.
Your videos should be mandatory for all home recording engineers. Great stuff. Thanks.
It reminds me of the classic formula of Cascading Noise Floor:-
Nf (total) = Nf1 + [(Nf2 -1)/G1] + [(Nf3 -1)/(G1xG2)] + [...
The trick is the first stage must have the lowest noise floor and high gain.
And tomorrow kids, we expect you to have that formula memorized for Julian's quiz.
This channel deserves to be more popular. More people need to understand the technology they use!
Too much SCIENCE BRUH. Record 'engineers' just use their feelings bro.
You're absolutely right though.
Again, if somebody is interested in some tech details. Noise voltages don't sum in a straightforward way like Va + Vb + Vc ... +Vz. It's impossible to calculate an absolutely accurate sum of two noises, but as a rule of thumb sqrt(Va*Va + Vb*Vb, etc) is used with adequate results. So what happens when we try to sum the noises and one of them is 12 dB (roughly 4 times) louder than another, a quite common situation, described in this video? sqrt(4*4 + 1*1) ≈ 4.1, which is ≈ 0.2 dB of extra noise, the higher noise source (4) is dominant and the lower noise source (1) doesn't affect the noise level significantly. With 6 dB (roughly 2 times) difference it is sqrt(2*2 + 1*1) ≈ 2.2, it's worse, ≈ 0.8 dB of extra noise, but it's far from the straightforward 2+1=3 ( ≈ 3.5 dB) anyway. The numbers were chosen for clarity, the real noise voltages are in the 0.00000... V area usually.
This probably answers the question I was going to ignorantly ask, of how come the noise of the preamp doesn't just add to the noise of the mic. It's because the mic noise is first in the chain and louder, so any softer noises after aren't added linearly. Because the physics of noise VOLTAGES getting added together isn't the same as what you'd get from hearing different audible noises added together in a room. Do I have that right?
So well done. Intelligent. Articulate. Well explained.
I started this same experiment today, started searching for vids and a couple hours later am glad I landed here, thanks'
Your videos are so good man, you deserve more support
Great work - I love the clear, understated fact-based presentation of JK's videos.
You really have a knack for breaking down technical details into an easy to understand form-a really good signal that you know what you’re talking about. Thanks for all you do!
Perfecly nailed. I refer to you very regularly in our french speaking weekly show "Les Sondiers" about sound recording. Your reviews are really the best.
Many thanks for the superb work
Wonderful video as always.
The big take away here is the fact that, as you said, almost all the time, a line leveled Dyn is gonna have a way higher noise floor than a Condenser due to the Conds being louder by default and higher dynamic range. Add to that the lack of treble the Dyns often have and how obvious the noise becomes if you ever shelve them, I almost never recommend dyn mics for relatively quiet signals like most people voices for example, and never in a broadcast environnement where compression is gonna be necessary.
Nice jumper, Julian. Merry Christmas, mate. Thanks for making this fabulous video. Steve.
3 minutes in I was brought back to reality. I've been struggling so hard to design a stereo mic preamplifier based on input transformers of all things only to start pulling hair out over which opamps input stage really lowered noise floor. This of course is also considerations that must be made for discrete electronics like individual transistor stages or tubes.
Reality is people are of two fields here, musical, or wanting to hear a fly fart properly from 20' away using the cleanest known audio path. Doesn't mean you should give in to hiss though, that's usually a fault of design or cheapening, or a mistake in understanding your equipment and impedance matching.
Discovered your channel yesterday and immediately subbed. The quality of your videos is second to none. The detailed explanations and testing are quite impressive. Would love to see some sort of interface “tier list” or “recommendations” video from you! Cheers, and thanks for the great work
You hoped I learned something new today? I did indeed! Thanks man!
What you discuss in this video is the headamp concept in low noise electronics design. The first amplification stage or "head" noise spec dominates over the next stage's even if it has three times higher gain than the heading stage. More than three times the head gain coming after it, starts to slowly allow extra noise to mix in.
For example if the condenser mic has 20dB amplification inside it, even 3X or 60dB in the sound interface will not allow it to play an extra role in the system's noise.
I need a Julian Krause in my pocket. Everyone needs one!
True and well explained. Still, there is the issue of condenser mic self-noise. Very low self-noise is a feature of expensive condenser mics. I have noticed that inexpensive condenser mics have a wide variation of self-noise, even within the same make and model. There isn't such an issue with dynamic or ribbon mics when you have very quiet and high gain preamps in your mixing or audio interface.
Pay me now, or pay me later. ;)
There isn’t much correlation between a condenser microphone’s noise and its price, meaning low noise is *not* a feature of expensive condenser microphones. For example, Røde’s NT1 has a stated noise of 4.5dAB and costs only $299 US (and that’s in a kit with shock mount and pop filter). Lewitt Audio’s LCT540 Subzero is currently the quietest mic on the market at 4dBA, and costs $699 US (again, sold with shock mount and pop filter). Neither of those could be called ‘expensive’ and yet they’re the two quietest microphones on the market at this point in time. Meanwhile, Earthworks QTC30 has a noise of 20dBA and costs $799, Neumann’s classic U87 Ai has 12dBA of noise in cardioid mode and costs $3650 US, and Neumann’s latest revision of the U67 has 17dBA of noise in cardioid mode and costs $7225 US. So more money does not mean less noise… [All prices here are from B&H’s webstore.]
There are two noise sources within a condenser microphone. The first is Brownian noise (named after botanist Robert Brown, nothing to do with colour), which is due to air particles randomly rubbing against the diaphragm. It sounds rather like white noise passed through a very steep low pass filter, considerably darker than pink noise. Then there is thermal noise (the classic white noise style of ‘hiss’) which is related to the impedances of the mic’s internal circuitry and the temperature. The total noise coming out of the microphone is the combination of both, and to accurately represent that the term ‘Equivalent Noise Level’ is often used in preference to ‘self noise’ in contemporary specifications.
Although there is no significant correlation between noise and price, there *is* a significant correlation between noise and diaphragm surface area. If we double the surface area of the diaphragm (and keep all other parameters the same), we’ll get twice as much Brownian noise and twice as much signal. The Brownian noise is uncorrelated, so doubling the diaphragm’s surface area creates an increase of 3dB (i.e. x √2) more Brownian noise. The captured signal is correlated, so doubling the diaphragm’s surface area creates an increase of 6dB (i.e. x 2) more signal. End result: double the diaphragm’s surface area and get 3dB more Brownian noise but 6dB more signal. So the signal going into the impedance converter circuit is 6dB stronger while the Brownian noise going into the impedance converter is only 3dB stronger. In other words, a higher amplitude signal with 3dB better S/N ratio going into the mic’s impedance converter. The microphone gets lower noise and higher sensitivity; the latter meaning it outputs a larger signal and therefore requires less preamp gain (technically the noise from the preamplifier is there but it’s not very significant compared to the noise from the condenser microphone itself, and especially less significant compared to a higher sensitivity condenser that requires less gain).
The NT1 and LCT540 Subzero are large diaphragm mics (around 25mm), which is part of how they achieve their low noise. The QTC30 diaphragm is tiny in comparison, which is why it has such high noise. Similarly, DPA’s 4060 has a noise of about 23dBA and a diaphragm of around 5mm. So why bother with small diaphragms? The advantages of very small diaphragms are higher SPL handling and excellent off-axis response. As we make the diaphragm larger we get less noise but also reduced SPL handling and worse off-axis response (the microphone becomes increasingly directional as the frequency gets higher because the diaphragm itself literally gets in the way of very high frequencies).
Rough late night examples, but the point is that price and noise aren’t really connected. Diaphragm surface area and noise are, however…
@@gregsimmons1709 Well marketing spec sheets are one thing, but then there's experience. Low self noise is a costly thing to guarantee, with consistency and quality control being big factors.
If marketing spec sheets were what mattered, we'd have a lot more $40 "studio quality" condenser mics selling to big name recording studios.
I NEVER MISS MOST OF YOUR NEW VIDEOS.
THANKS FOR THE "ALWAYS GREAT VIDEO" JULIAN
Vielen Dank
Thanks a lot, I learned how to compare sounds using the ENR (equivalent noise ratio,or self noise).
Great info! I am getting sick of the slight hum/buzz from the noise floor of my Shure SM7b. I'm thinking of switching to the Rode NT1 Gen 5 now.
Amazing video's that u are putting out, Julian. No blah blah about sponsors, just straight to the point, also very calm and pleasant to listen to. Very detailed reviews, etc. Also, everything is explained simply so that, we, people who don't know that much about audio understand it. I can say much more positive things.
Because of that I subscribed to you!
Keep up the good work Julian!
5:15 it's worth mentioning that recorders like Olympus LS-12, Tascam DR-40, and Zoom H4n that are popular among amateur musicians, nature recordists, and videographers, have an EIN well above -120 dBu. Ok with reasonably sensitive and high-output mics, but if you're recording from something like an SM7B or NTG2 it's important to get levels right or your SNR can drop precipitously. Especially relevant to people like wedding videographers who may be running solo and have minimal time to set levels - or may not even get a sound check.
That's clearly not the target audience for this video but some of those folks may see this and get the wrong impression. That said, the bigger issues are usually mic placement, ambient noise, and mic self-noise.
any idea what the EIN number is for those, as well as onboard sound card?
Thanks Julian. Great info as always. How about a video dedicated to the differences between the different kinds of microphones: their specs and applications?
You are the best no nonsense audio channel on CZcams 👍👍👍
I've been "educated" today. Wonderful explanations that definitely help me to better understand.
AaaaaaAAAAAaaaghhhhhhhh! Bandrew's head is gonna implode! 🤯
you are the best, the most worthy CZcams ever existed
Hey Julian can u shed some light(maybe in future) about dynamic and condenser mic spl and how much pressure dynamic vs condenser mic can handle. Which is the key for condenser mic for having more details I believe. Anyway Love u 💞
4:02 sick diagram 🤜🤛 well done overall 😃
Endlich jemand, der ein Colette für Sprachaufnahmen nimmt! Danke für das Video und den Vergleich. Das Schoeps klopft einem ja wirklich die Konsonanten in den Kopf, das SM7b klingt wie Pudding dagegen. Mal meditieren, was ich lieber mag...
Who cares about a Schoeps MK41? or an RN17?
Thanks! I've been wondering about this for some time, as I'm using a Steinberg UR44C, which I noted in your previous tests is (or the 22C sibling) has one of the worst noise specs, and is often used in your comparisons, like this. Yet, I don't detect a disturbing level of noise in the recordings. Surprise, most of my recordings are just condenser mics, or maybe 2 condensers and a dynamic, which I suppose still gets trumped by the noise from the condensers.
If you are using a cheap handheld recorder with a high EIN and a very low noise condenser, the noise may be doubled. With the very sensitive small diaphragm condensers the same preamp will not contribute a significant amount of noise. A modern home studio card, even a 200 euro one, will not add significant noise to any microphone. The noise contribution of the preamp and the signal per noise of a specific sound pressure level can be calculated from the specification of preamps, dynamic and cardioid mics.
“physics and stuff” 😂 Very helpful, ❤️ your videos!
Damn, thats so nice to see! I definetly learned something new today, killer content as always!
How about a video on the best overall interface so far from what you’ve tested?
But the thing is, it's most common to find dynamic mics on loud sources (drums, amps, etc) and condensers on quieter things like acoustic string instruments and vocals, so it generally works out that noise isn't a huge deal most of the time with either type of mic. If you put some tubes in the circuit though you're definitely going to get a bit of noise regardless of what type of mic you use, but it's generally worth it. :-)
Tubes just make the noise nice harmonic noise. ;-)
Things are so much better today than yesteryear when we used tape and analog mixers.
This was such an eye opener
Very nicely explained 👏 Thank you very much, Julian!
The noise level on the Steinberg is just mad in comparison to many of the others. Especially because I gather Steinberg (And Yamaha who owns them) is a generally respected brand. And the form factor and the price is basically the same as many others.
I actually have a rather old Steinberg CI2+ as a backup interface. It's stupidly simple and just works plug and play at least on windows computers. I haven't even attempted to measure it's noise performance when I've had it connected - I've used it with condenser mics in meetings and calls and it hasn't been noticeable, but then in a meeting no-one's listening to that small amount of noise even if there is any.
Excellent presentation, thank you !
Bill P.
Julian, you are soooo awesome! Thank you!
There was a difference, there is a spike in noise at around 6-8 kHz (in the white noise signal) with the Steinberg pre amp that is not present in the other example, the rest of the noise sounded the same though
I have no opinion on preamps, just saying what I hear
I get how due to the 60 Db increase the effect is grossly multiplied, I agree there was no noticeable difference with the Voice audio switch
Very interesting, Julian. Thanks for sharing
people worry too much about preamp noise anyways. -130dB noise floor? I remember not being able to hear -50 in my daw on solo, let alone in a mix. Noise is usually close to white noise, which pretty much always get's lost in a mix until the mix is not dense (like a piano and vocal duo). My analog gear produces at least 20x the noise of the boring ultra linear home recording equipment shown here but I enjoy the sound of an overdriven mic pre with an aggressive compressor. Even if it's noisy as hell.
Formula to calc noise floor of condenser microphone based on specification:
[Equivalent noise level] + [Sensitivity in dBV] + 2,2 dB - 94 dB
(2,2 dB comes from conversion from dBV to dBu)
For example SE Electronics SE8:
Sensitivity: 25 mV / Pa (-32 dBV)
Equivalent noise level: 13 dB
Substitution into formula:
13 dB + (-32 dBV) + 2,2 dB - 94 dB = -110,8 dBu
Am I right with calculations?
You is best of best ...thanks ....most professional explanations in shortest time possible
You’re so good at explaining everything
Great vid my man. Why we use cloud lifters. Even with high end interfaces it helps with dynamic mics.
In some people's opinion the Zoom H4n was bad with the Røde NTG-2, whereas the NTG-2 was fine with some other recorders, and the Zoom H4n was fine with some other condenser microphones. I do not own the NTG-2, but I do own the Zoom H4n. I haven't, however, been able to find any specs on its preamps. But if those "some people" can be trusted, it seems that sometimes preamp noise does matter with some condenser microphones.
(And as "some people" in this case are named Curtis Judd, I do tend to trust their views).
Hi Julian, just half an hour before watch this video, I have my Rode NT1a and Shure SM57 recording in a dry channel and comparing the noise.. what you said is totally true!
If you use a dynamic mic, use a better preamp. If you use a condenser mic, use a better self noise microphone.. :D
But I have a problem here,
I tested both microphone (NT1a and SM57) to find which is better to reduce "Ambient noise". I have a lot of ambience noise from a road nearby even I've soundproofed my room with some Roxul insulation (not the ceiling though, not yet)
I make an asmr unboxing video so it's a big problem for me.
Using a dynamic cardiod microphone (sm57) does not solve the problem as my test today say so.. ambient noise only reduce by 3-4 db but the preamp noise is quite a big jump
Is the only solution for my problem is to use a hypercardiod microphone? I know some condenser hypercardiod microphone such as samson C02 but the self noise is -22dBa...
do you have any suggestion for me?
THanks a lot!
Not sure a hypercardioid will solve your issue without adding other problems: Hypercardioid microphone do pickup some sound at the rear of the microphone and that may not suit your needs and also have a significant proximity effect (extreme bass amplification when you are close to the capsule).
Maybe you could consider using a dynamic microphone (to naturally reduce the ambiant noise) that has a fairly high outpul level (to compensate for the preamp noise). A microphone such as the Prodipe TT1 has a much higher output level as the SM57 and costs next to nothing. Or you could try the Aston Element that has a very special capsule to provide the behavior of a dynamic microphone with a high output level and excellent high end that you usually lack with dynamic microphones
Julian I have always wondered about something and maybe you could answer this, how much does the dither type found in the converter chip effect the type of noise you get from an interface? Paul Frindle who designed the first large studio mixing console called the Oxford console (Sonnox plugins are an offshoot of Frindle's work) along with George Massenburg tested different dither types and came to the conclusion that a flat triangle dither gave better noise floor performance compared to exotic shaped noise. My question is do you think the dynamic range of modern audio interface are so low that this isn't an issue any longer or do you think that some of the noise (not all) we hear today in is partially different dither algorithms from the codec chip? I'm a huge fan of your channel by the way!!!
Your question is almost two decades late - I think the last ADC chips with fancy dithering options came out in 1997, and all parts introduced since the early 2000s have been straight 24-bit (and lately 32-bit) out. Since then, dither is (or may be) applied in the mastering stage in software, when it comes to creating 16-bit output for CD. If you set your audio devices to 16-bit in or out, chances are samples will just be truncated. At full bit depth, what you hear will be plain analog noise.
I've tried a fair few dithering algorithms, and I think I may have come across a possible reason for reservations against shaped dither... the shaped dither could have a rather nasty peak right around the area where human hearing is most sensitive to noise (4-10 kHz), poking out well above the flat dither spectrum. The most audibly benign one I've come across is Foobar2000's heavily perceptually shaped dither, as accessible when using its converter. Using an audio player for mastering may not be overly convenient but you can also get a highly optimized SoX-based resampler DSP for it so you may at least be able to kill two birds with one stone.
It be noted that dither and 0dBFS+ levels do not mix, as dithering assumes linearity. Keep true peak below 0 dBFS, with dithering on you can definitely afford it.
As an aside, lossy data reduction formats (MP3, AAC etc.) generally use floating point arithmetic and as such can be encoded from higher precision data. Later Minidisc recorders seem to have supported encoding ATRAC from 20-bit input, DCC could do 18 bit recording then, and retro activists have managed to even stuff 24-bit samples into its MPEG layer 1 audio recently (though I don't think any DCC deck ever had more than a 20-bit DAC). This may seem silly but does mean that lossy formats support higher total dynamic range than CD audio (which, mind you, is generally twiddling its thumbs as-is, given that its capabilities already exceed those of practical listening environments).
PileOfEmptyTapes and you made some good points. The reason you do not need any dither even for 24 bit in modern sigma delta converters is that they do not capture the signal in PCM but rather in a single or multibit stream that runs at much higher sampling frequencies (actually quite similar to DSD). These converters have high amounts of quitisation noise but this is pushed entirely out of the audible range resulting in an extremly high usable dynamic range. The thermal noise in the converter is often the limiting factor for the noise floor providing essentially natural dither. When the captured bitstream is converted to 24 bit PCM there is simply no dither needed. But most ADCs have the option to add dither, when they are set up to output 16 bit PCM as this can improve the usable dynamic range of the otherwise limited 16 bit format.
Tbh, the dynamic range of ADCs and DACs these days is so big that it is often more likely to hear other noise like ambient noise or inherent noise of the mic or preamp.
Interesting, but when I recently hooked up my Shure SM81-LC mic to a Tascam DR-40x, the latter added a very audible noise level to the recording, compared to my previous Focusrite Scarlett Solo (3rd gen) setup with the same mic. Does that mean that the noise added by the DR-40x is "unreasonable", as you've explained? Also, do you have a favorite portable audio recorder which I could replace the DR-40x with? Thanks for all your videos, they're super valuable.
Еhis is the video I've been waiting for a long timeю Thank you very much, Julian
Probably irrelevant, but when you were speaking in the condenser mic, I could hear the click and pop noises made by your tongue, but I couldn't hear them when you were speaking in the SM7B. I found that fascinating.
I would believe, that the self noise of the microphone is always on top of the preamplifier self noise - as the input of the microphone noise isn’t drowned by the noise floor of the interface.
Well, to fairly compare microphone self noise, you have to adjust the noise spec using the sensitivity spec, to bring everything to the same target signal level, say 0 VU.
I'd like to see someone explain the maths for that, especially as the sensitivity spec is defined in a couple of different formats. It would be nice to have a full & reliable explanation on how to convert these things.
Ta
You’ve done some great tutorials on microphone sensitivity and noise, but have you done any on the topic of how to select the most appropriate microphone sensitivity and dynamic range for various recording situations (e.g., rock bands vs. orchestra vs. vocalist vs. field recording)?
Thank you for sharing such high level info. Great video.
great video! love this channel
Of course, the compression which youtube adds alters what we "hear" in the examples as well, which must be taken into account. And with youtube, if listening on a laptop's speakers, the difference between a Lewitt Sub Zero and a TLM 103 (on a youtube clip) will not be readily discernible to the average listener "listening" on a current iteration of a decent laptop, vs good earphones or monitors, but all-that-aside, I love this video! [edit] the Lewitt sub-zero and TLM 103 have verifiable 'super low" self-noise compared to other condenser mics, and I feel that should be recognized for this discussion.
Ty for your videos, very interesting and great quallity of videos itself.
Hi Julian, when you tested the original Focusrite Clarett 2Pre, your testing showed great results regarding dynamic range on the mic inputs and line outputs, with poorer results regarding mic pre noise and it’s headphone output. I recently purchased the new Focusrite Clarett+ 2Pre. It sounds so great that I feel like I bought new studio monitors. Focusrite claims they have improved it’s specifications with a new, different ADC/DAC chipset and headphone output. I’d be curious to see your results when testing the new one, as I have been very impressed so far with subjective listening.
Hey Julian, how did you calculate the mics’ dbu(A) levels from their self noise? What’s the formula? Great video - as always 👍🏻👍🏻
For condenser mics you can look up the equivalent input noise in their spec sheets and for dynamic mics you would need to calculate it. I have roughly shown this in this video: czcams.com/video/_P8AJxVepUE/video.html
Decided to comment under this video again for better visibility: Hello Julian. I am currently recording on a 10y old Scarlet 2i2 1Gen and want to upgrade to something more professional (had a few songs on the radio and my interface is really lacking). I now have the chance to buy a used (1y old) UAD Apollo Solo Interface (with classic collection plugins) from a local recording studio and was wondering if it is worth the higher price point when compared to other (cheaper) interfaces (eg. Audient iD 14, SSL2/2+ or even UADs own Volt 276). To be clear - I am looking to buy something that will serve me well for another 8-10 years of my musical journey (so I would rather pay a little more and be satisfied than having to spend more down the read). Thank you very much in advance and all the best!
Julian, at 4:39 you show a graph of the noise of some microphones - you say calculated noise. Therefore it seems you used the specification data for that calculation, right? Or did you use some measured results? Because "on paper" the SE8 has only a self noise of 13dB -- the same like the Neumann KM184. But in your graph you show a much higher noise for the SE8. This correlates well to my practical tests. I have the AKG C391B which has a self noise of 17 dB. In your graph the self noise is higher than the KM184 -- which it should be. But the AKG in your graph shows a much lower noise than the SE8, which in my real world experience is true, but is not seen in the specifcation sheet. So what is the explanation for that? I'd love to hear an answer. Maybe also a nice idea for another video!? 😀
Thank you for this!!!
*sweater reduces 60dB of reflections in room*
And y’all thought mics matter lol
Just kidding everybody. Happy holidays!
Great video and explanation as usual 👏👏👏
thanks for knowledge Julian
Cheers and kudos to you and your uploads mate,, very informative thanks much for that.. One question though just want your opinion since i'm soon going to purchase a new audio interface about the price of a motu m2 .. what would you recommend for mainly vocal recordings? thanks much!
Wow, physics! Who would have guessed!! ;-)
Need help. I hoocked Behringer xenyx 1202 USB to my Huawei P20pro and will livestream/video recording of my rehaersal(2xguitars, bass, singing, drums from EZD, but sound in video, or streaming is mono. Any apps or what can help? Is not compatible. I cant find it on net. Thnx. You make great videos 👍
Thank you very much!
Always informative, thanks man
The only area where preamps and amplifiers become important concerning condenser mics is the frequency response they contribute to a recording. All preamps/amplifiers interact with your condenser mic, influencing the tonal characteristics of your recording, thus these should be chosen more with a mind to final sound rather than their self-noise as already explained by Julian.
Condenser mics typically have a relatively low output impedance
Stellar explaining as always
The noise of the cheap Behringer U-Phoria UM2 was way higher than that of my cheap condenser mic, though...
So good to know!!!
Excellent video. Very well explained.
Hi Julian! Love your videos! I'm wondering, I seem to recall that you did a video where you proved/stated that a Shure SM7B doesn't necessarily need a CloudLifter or another kind of preamp. Do you still feel this way? (Now that the price has dropped on the SM7B, I'm once again lusting after one, but, as usual, I'm balking at the additional price of a CloudLifter.) ( I'm using a Presonus Studio 24c, and a Presonus AudioBox USB 96) T.I.A.!
whether or not you need an inline preamp depends on the audio-interface and its preamps and their capabilities and not just on the microphone. The PreSonus Studio 24c has good preamps with low selfnoise. It can power the SM7B as long as its close to your mouth - just plug in the microphone, turn the preamp all the way up and see if your audio-meter reaches a proper recording level. if you have it further away you might benefit from an inline preamp due to the 24c's limited gain supply - check the video here czcams.com/video/s3a-MnP2GFA/video.html The USB96 unfortunately has really noisy and weak preamps so you would absolutely benefit from an inline preamp there - check the video here czcams.com/video/phiFdrsijI4/video.html
@@DrWurzeli Thanks!
Hallo Julian, wie misst Du das Eigenrauschen von Mikrofonen? Könntest Du auch den Frequenzgang von Mikrofonen messen? Wie ist der Testaufbau für diese Zwecke bzw. welche Software nutzt Du mit welchen Einstellungen? Viele Grüße Dennis
Nice video man! so for a small budget between $200-$500, which Audio Interface do you think is the best?
Many many thanks for the info 🤗👍
Another great video , Thank you !
How to remove noise from
SM7B + FETHED + DBX286?
Thx 🙏🏻
replace the SM7B with something that has a higher sensitivity and less self-noise.
Well done Julian - thumbs up :-)
thanks Julian! you are a myth breaker 😎👊
great video!!
Your the dude! Thanks for the info.
man... this is the first video of you that you ever blink
amazing video, I have a question Julian. 16 bit vs 24 bit recording quality of a interface for home usage. For instance, would M Track solo be clearly inferior in quality compared to other 24 bit capable interfaces? I would love if you could make a myth busting or proper explanation video on that and also to show the fact if inferior, it is negligible or not.
You've got to see the whole package. This type of interface is going to be just fine for a spoken word application (voiceover or podcasting), where mid-80s dB of dynamic range is perfectly adequate und nobody cares about the last bit of filter ripple in the frequency response or whether distortion is 80 or 95 dB down. In fact, when using a dynamic mic I'd much rather have one of these than the Presonus Audiobox 96 with its terribly noisy mic input. Add an XM8500 or PGA58 and a basic mic stand, and you've got a decent cheap and cheerful podcasting setup.
What they do not have (and that's something shared e.g. with the Behringer UMCxxxHD series) is very high maximum input level... the M-Tracks seem to max out at -1 dBu, and then ADC clipping starts at -4 dBFS so it's more like -5 dBu tops. If you have a condenser mic on the hot side like an AT2035 or TLM103, this would mean clipping at ca. 119 dB SPL, which could get tight for singing.
You clearly won't get much street cred for using an interface with a near two decade old USB single-chip audio solution, but they've got a time and place when it needs to be simple and cheap.
That being said, pre-pandemic I was able to buy a used Mackie 402VLZ4 compact mixer for roughly the same price... if you have some half-decent onboard audio mic or line input available that can be wrestled into cooperating if necessary (e.g. turning off noise reduction, enable 24-bit recording via modded drivers), that's another option no doubt. You'll want to set output level to ca. -15 dB for a decent match to the onboard input, but this mixer's mic inputs can take up to +22 dBu or something silly like that, so no problems with hot mics for sure, and input noise is good regardless. I'm running mine into a trusty Asus Xonar D1's line input.
brilliant explanation
Hi Julian! Any plans on doing a review of the new Clarett+ interface?
Please please make a video on RME babyface pro fs
Ultra high-end low noise condenser microphone, preamp and AD converter will make a considerable difference in a context where the source is low in volume.
Wait, when did I ever say I was right about it? Oh, you're being trendy catchy title guy. I get it.